7. Indigenous entrepreneurialism and mining land use agreements

In the Pilbara region of Western Australia, the focus of this chapter, the mining boom—or the ‘ramp up’ in production as it is referred to within the industry—is such that negotiations for land access have intensified and annual payments to the Indigenous organisations examined here have increased threefold since 1997. These organisations are the Gumala Aboriginal Corporation (Gumala) and Gumala Investments Pty Ltd (GIPL); set up to manage the Yandicoogina Agreement (YLUA). This chapter critically examines the mechanisms through which Indigenous beneficiaries are able to articulate to a Land Use Agreement (LUA) as individuals, with specific attention to possibilities for entrepreneurial activity. The range of possibilities for direct and tangible benefits from agreements is a key area of Indigenous concern. Because of the complexity of the land use agreements examined for this project, this chapter will only focus on Rio Tinto’s YLUA in the Hamersley Ranges of the Pilbara. Indigenous ‘beneficiaries’ operate in a politically volatile and economically expansive context in this area of engagement with the mining sector and the organisations developed to manage the agreements.^[1]

To closely consider a range of articulations with the YLUA, it seems apposite to provide a series of examples of the ways in which particular individuals have engaged with opportunities and, conversely, individual critiques of structural limitations on engagement within the YLUA. To some extent, these examples will be biographical. Indeed, a few Indigenous people in the Hamersley region have published biographies, several with the assistance of Rio Tinto and organisations established to manage agreements. One of the biographical ‘case studies’ discussed in this chapter will be that of Lola Young (2007). The other individuals discussed will, for ethical reasons and to retain anonymity, be referred to by pseudonyms. These brief accounts of individual engagements with the industry are included towards the end of the chapter, after consideration of the context within which individuals are enabled to operate. While entrepreneurialism is a focus of this research, it encompasses the ways in which individual beneficiaries to the Agreement can benefit, rather than solely examining possibilities for developing business enterprise.

Source: Cartographic Services, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, ANU.

There are a range of structures and mechanisms through which Indigenous ‘beneficiaries’ to the YLUA can engage with its financial benefits. Many of these benefits are indirect or process oriented—ranging from gaining sitting fees from committee membership and, presumably, having some element of investment over allocation of resources, to working on heritage clearances for the Company. While this analysis is concerned with the YLUA, and relevant elements of the Agreement structures will be outlined below, the broader economy of the region is such that individuals may be party to more than one agreement with different mining companies. Indeed, some individuals sit on such a range of committees that their attendance at meetings is a full time occupation. Other more direct and secure means for financially engaging with the YLUA include employment for organisations that were established to manage it; elderly and infirm people gaining regular ‘top-up’ monies from the Foundation (no longer operating), to being employed on the mine site (though this is open to anyone Indigenous, non-Indigenous, local or global) and in associated operations; working on specific cross-cultural programs provided to non-Indigenous mine staff; and self-employment in small mine-related contracting businesses.